Video: Tattoo artist makes her mark by fighting city hall

Jennifer Mann

Friday

Mar 27, 2009 at 12:01 AMMar 27, 2009 at 3:45 PM

The Rockland woman’s dream of opening a tattoo parlor on West Squantum Street in Quincy was nearing fruition. Then she saw a stop-work order taped to her door. What began as a setback for Mathieu has ended in a legal victory for her in Norfolk Superior Court. It has been a case of clashing rights: Mathieu’s right to free speech versus the city’s right to regulate use.

Nancy Mathieu had signed a lease, secured a city building permit and registered for all the necessary health certification courses.

The Rockland woman’s dream of opening a tattoo parlor on West Squantum Street in Quincy was nearing fruition. Then she saw a stop-work order taped to her door.

What began as a setback for Mathieu has ended in a legal victory for her in Norfolk Superior Court. It has been a case of clashing rights: Mathieu’s right to free speech versus the city’s right to regulate use.

TATTOO PARLORS

Mathieu’s soon-to-open Bay State Tattoo is on West Squantum Street, in Quincy’s Montclair neighborhood. While it drew city councilors’ attention, it is far from the only tattoo studio in the city. The others include:

Granite City Tattoo,
12 Revere Road

Body Xtremes,
417 Hancock St.

Skin Deep Tattoo Studio, 22 Brook St.

Mathieu is planning to open Bay State Tattoo at the end of April, but she is not celebrating yet, because the city has not ruled out appealing the judge’s decision.

“There’s been so much back and forth about the whole thing, I’ll just be relieved when it’s actually opened,” said Mathieu, who has a bachelor’s degree in painting, has apprenticed and participated in conventions, and views tattoo work as an art form.

The conflict has its roots in the city council’s May 15, 2008, vote to enact an ordinance prohibiting tattoo parlors within 1,000 feet of a school. The vote took place one day after Mathieu received a building permit for her shop and 10 days after she signed a lease.

Mathieu, whose shop would be around the corner from the Montclair Elementary School, said the proposed law had never been mentioned in her several conversations with officials at city hall.

City Solicitor James Timmins said even though Mathieu received her business permit the day before the city council voted, she would have needed to have it before the new law was advertised to the public in order to be grandfathered in with the two existing tattoo shops near Quincy schools.

After receiving the stop-work order on May 16, Mathieu applied for an exception through the city’s health department. That request was denied, which brought the issue to court.

Louis Cassis, the attorney for Mathieu, said it is pretty clear that the ordinance was specifically targeting his client. It was proposed by City Councilor Kevin Coughlin, whose ward includes the Montclair School.

“To me, it was obvious,” he said. “Kevin Coughlin denies that’s the case, but to me the timing was too close for that to be coincidental.”

Coughlin, however, said he began work on the ordinance about a year and a half before Mathieu even began talking about her shop – and he said he submitted documents to the judge to prove it. He said his action was prompted by phone calls he had received over the years from residents concerned about unsavory characters loitering in front of existing tattoo parlors.

“If you look at what government does very often – whether it’s sex-offender ordinances or driving-under-the-influence laws – we’re reacting to circumstances that have presented themselves and we’re trying to mitigate them going forward,” he said.

“This woman seems very competent, she’s got all the licenses and the skills. It’s too bad she happened to pick this location,” added Timmins. “If she had picked another location she clearly would have been able to open.”

In his ruling, Superior Court Judge John P. Connor determined that Mathieu’s First Amendment rights were at stake, so the city needed to prove that the new ordinance would further substantial government interest by protecting children.

“The defendants enacted the amendment based on mere speculation that a body art establishment’s operation could somehow harm children attending a nearby school,” the judge said.

Connor also noted the health department had provided no documentation of Mathieu’s hearing, nor reasons for denying the appeal for an exception.

Coughlin called the decision “unfortunate and regrettable,” pointing to case law where it was ruled that when it comes to tattoos, while the person receiving the body art has protected First Amendment rights, those do not extend to the tattoo artist.

“By way of this decision, he’s infringing upon the city’s right to self-governance and home rule authority,” he said.

Jennifer Mann may be reached at jmann@ledger.com.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.